State v. Carter
2016 Ohio 2725
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Charles Carter, bound over from juvenile court for a 2013 robbery and murder committed at age 16, pleaded guilty after negotiation to amended counts: involuntary manslaughter (with firearm spec) and aggravated robbery. Parties agreed to a recommended 13–20 year term.
- At initial sentencing the trial court imposed a 19‑year term with consecutive sentences but misstated the numerical counts (sentenced on wrong count numbers); the court later issued a nunc pro tunc entry after appeal issues arose.
- This court previously affirmed conviction, agreed the crimes did not merge and that consecutive sentences were supported, but remanded for resentencing because of the misnumbered counts so the sentence could be entered on the correct counts.
- On remand the trial court held a limited resentencing hearing, heard mitigating argument and victim statements, reiterated it had considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors, and again imposed a 19‑year term.
- Carter appealed, arguing the trial court failed to seriously consider the purposes and principles of sentencing and the R.C. 2929.12 seriousness and recidivism factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 purposes and seriousness/recidivism factors before imposing a 19‑year sentence | The State: trial court properly considered the factors, reiterated prior findings, and victim impact supported the sentence | Carter: court did not seriously consider purposes/principles of sentencing or R.C. 2929.12 factors before imposing 19 years | Affirmed — court’s on‑record statement and sentencing entry show it considered required factors; Carter failed to show by clear and convincing evidence the record did not support the sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214, 951 N.E.2d 381 (Ohio 2011) (trial court need not state magic words; consideration of statutory factors may be presumed from record)
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 893 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 2008) (final appealable order principles referenced in context of sentencing entries)